No, the driver isn't compensated for checking the app. He's not working at that point.

No. If he doesn't pick anyone up, he doesn't get paid. Otherwise he could go after the passenger for theft of service. He can't, therefore he's not "on the job".

No, it'd be "I'm on the way to work" insurance. The driver should be covered under their personal insurance.

Exactly right. So the parent stating that Uber's insurance starts when the passenger enters the vehicle makes sense. Parent then states that some private insurance won't cover the driver heading to the pickup location. Seems to me they should. It's the individual transporting themselves to the job, same as when I drive to the office in the morning. Right?

I don't think there are any direct comparisons to make, but it's not far off. An Uber driver responding to a ride request but not carrying passengers is not all that different than an office worker responding to the start of the business day by driving to the office. Both have commerce in mind, but they're both "off the clock" heading to where the job is. Seems to me that insurance should cover that.

That doesn't make sense. You're not "in business" then. If I get into a crash on my way to work (not Uber), my insurance covers it.

The public loves to assign blame, just look at all the anti-police riots we've had lately.

Look, it's possible that the train operator was not responsible. Possible. I don't think it's very likely. If it was a malfunction, in the minute or more before the derailing, he could have radioed in that there was a problem. He didn't. If it was a medical condition, it would have to be something undiagnosed. I expect he would have had a stay in the hospital in that case to determine what the issue was. He was out of the hospital pretty quick from what I can see in the various news articles.

It could be criminal and third party, but again, it's much more likely that the train operator was speeding than conjuring up a terrorist act. If it was terrorism, someone would be claiming credit.

I trust the NTSB and the FBI to eventually figure it out, but if I were into gambling, I know what cause I'd be betting on.

The urge is probably because this looks like a straight-forward case of speeding. The train was traveling too fast and fell off the rails on a curve. If so, this isn't a case where you simply fire the guy and move on. He is responsible for the lives of the passengers.

No one is calling for the investigation to be stopped. Until then, the public is left to opine based on the limited information that's available. The public likes a boogeyman.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm not really buying it. NTSB won't be the agency to prosecute him, that's not their role. He could very well cooperate with them but still decline to talk to the authorities that could pursue charges. We've got temporary amnesia, something supposedly hitting the windshield, perhaps a train malfunction. Or.. he may have been speeding and didn't want to own up to it. Which seems more likely? Think horses, not zebras.

If the train was at fault, the train operator wouldn't have refused to talk to the authorities after the crash. Either that, or the union got him the worst lawyer ever.

Not above ground trains, but they have their own subway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

No one is getting hacked to death on US streets because Christianity demanded it. Trying to compare the two is a BS argument.

IP geolocation doesn't work reliably. To comply with export laws would be an onerous burden for anything on the Internet. No one has accomplished such a feat yet.

Right after the US joins the EU.

Show me a politician that follows through on what they said during the campaigns. Doesn't happen often, therefore.. not the government we wanted. The federal government is especially bad since that's where the worst abuses happen. Patriot Act, domestic spying, IRS retribution, gun smuggling, too big to fail, etc.